What's in Civ4. Just the facts, ma'am.

[Solver]

Beat me too, I am pretty excited but have some concerns at this time.

Removal of pollution and such stuff seems great. Though I could argue they could go and improve the model instead of removing it - but that sounds good, still. As for removal of key strategy defining things such as riots or maintenance, I only want to hope that they will find decent concepts to replace them with.

3D stuff is concerning me somewhat. I hope that Civ 4 will remain just as easy to view as previous games. Also, system requirements - one thing I've always loved about Civ were the low requirements. I've played Civ 3 on comps as weak as 400 MHz with 64 MB RAM, and it was fine - sure, longer turn and loading times, but it was just fine. I hope that CIv 4 will also be able to run on what's a lower-end machine by when it comes out. Though my next computer upgrade is scheduled for a year from now, approximately, so if they get it released at the end of 2005, I'll have a comp that's 4-6 months old.

Borrowing of RPG concepts. Well, let's see how they handle it... I liked it perfectly the way unit experience was in SMAC. If they're going to do anything like warcraft or HoMM, I may be a bit skeptical. But again, this is something that can be done very well, too.

Civics and religion - .

The decision to have Soren as the lead designer - while (1) printf(""); - Soren is a great member of the team, and did amazing work on Civ 3.

The interface - us experienced civ players aren't as affected, but for newbies a simple interface is good. RoN did it ideally, IMO. As for that "simplify" thing, I hope thta Soren will take it exactly the right way - that is, simplification of unfun concepts and similar, but not a decrease in overall game complexity. I really hope that Firaxis aren't looking to take away that complexity from Civ.

Overall, though, knowing that Soren reads this board and knows what we want, I am sure that my concerns are, just that, unbased concerns, and that the game will be great! I hope that we will see the first screens this year.

Oh, and if Civ 4 was to be released this year, it would have a ton of problems. The main thing to do is to make sure that the game is not hurried or under too much time pressure, which means not releasing it this year, obviously.

[Nikolai]

Wooooho! I love what we know so far, although it isn't much. That they are going to do some innovation is just great, I hope it turns out right. Oh, and I really like that they at last will implement religion. That was the one theme in the List that I really burned for making it in Civ3. Hope we get more info soon, 'cause now I am really exited!

[hexagonian]

After reading your breakdown Locutus, I have a lot of hope for civ4.

I know a few people will hear the word 'streamline' and automatically think CTP. But this is the one area that civ needs to be improved. It is the main reason why I am not playing civ3 now.

For instance,
Allow a player to merge workers into a locked worker gang for both movement and actual tile improvement construction that gains additional benefits if it is locked. - i.e. 2 workers would halve production time and would also have a percentage chance to knock off another turn off of build time. This would create the incentive to the player to streamline his gameplay without sacrificing the worker-based system.

Same concept with military units - allow players to fight battles with multiple units with one push of a button (and create a combined arms concept with flank and range) and get an additional percentage bonus (either HP, or Attack) if you do so. This system does not require that you put a cap on the total number of units on a tile either (as in CTP)

RP elements can be a good thing - create more Great Leader-type units that will act as generals that give combat-based bonuses, or economic leaders that give ongoing production boosts, or cultural leaders that create civ-wide happiness bonuses, etc...

Religion - definitely needed, given that it's role in history is very profound. You may agree or disagree about it's truth, but you cannot deny that was the driving force of most of the ancient/medieval societies.

They do not have to get rid of pollution, corruption or culture, but they can figure out some way to fix it.

[Brent]

I weonder if civics in the game would include some of my suggestions, like internal cultural variation, internal provinces, political parties and internal political leaders. And yes, I know I'm not the only one who suggested any of these.

Removal of pollution, corruption, and riots is good. Removal of maintenance is not. Maintenance of cities, that is. Expenditure of resources by units would be good to remove. Removal of culture is not good.

I hope simplification wouldn't mean less than 40 civs in the initial release, and through expansions I would want that number to increase to at least 60.

Complexity is what makes the game fun.

I'll add my voice saying don't release it this year.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Allow a player to merge workers into a locked worker gang for both movement and actual tile improvement construction that gains additional benefits if it is locked. - i.e. 2 workers would halve production time and would also have a percentage chance to knock off another turn off of build time. This would create the incentive to the player to streamline his gameplay without sacrificing the worker-based system.

If I understood it correctly this would still mean I have to move a lot of units around, not a good idea. If the worker based system should be kept then it needs some improvement, for instance I should be able to set up construction sites, and the workers will find their way on their own to them. This would be like the CTP system but without paying PW, and the tile improvements wouldn't be constructed automaticly, only if a worker would work on it, and of course the more woker the better, in the end it should be like in CTP place the construction site and forget.

Originally posted by hexagonian
They do not have to get rid of pollution, corruption or culture, but they can figure out some way to fix it.

I agree, at least for corruption and pollution. For culture I don't know whether I should agree/disagree, because the hundrets of worker bug kept me from getting Civ3. For corruption I can't remember that it is an issure in Civ2, but it is there, it is there in CTP1/2 as well, ok there it is called crime rate, but not such an issure either. Well that might depent on the mod you are playing.

Pollution is managable in Civ2, CTP1 and CTP2, except when I modded the pollution values in CTP2, and if you don't like pollution you can disable it in CTP1 and CTP2. I just checked Civ2 and was surprised that there is the option to win the game by conquest only but no without pollution option.

Well for 3D graphics it could be interesting to be able to rotate the map as long it is birds eye view.

-Martin

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann
If I understood it correctly this would still mean I have to move a lot of units around, not a good idea. If the worker based system should be kept then it needs some improvement, for instance I should be able to set up construction sites, and the workers will find their way on their own to them. This would be like the CTP system but without paying PW, and the tile improvements wouldn't be constructed automaticly, only if a worker would work on it, and of course the more woker the better, in the end it should be like in CTP place the construction site and forget.

I do not think that civ4 would do away with a worker-based setup because it is one of those concepts that, for better or worse, defines what a Sid-based civstyle game is.

As much as I like your idea for the sake of streamlining, it ends up placing too much of the control of tile-based construction into the hands of the computer rather than the player, and AI automation of tasks and decisionmaking is one of those things that most players do not want. If you have multiple tile improvement projects going on, with different times that each project is completed, as well as future plans for new construction and ongoing creation of workers, how is the computer supposed to figure out the most efficient means to complete those projects.

You may decide to start a project in the eastern part of your empire during a turn (and you currently have no workers in that area), so you give the command and some of your workers from the rest of your empire proceed to that location. Then on the following turn, you decide to build another worker in the eastern part of the empire to do the task itself. The creation of that worker will save you time. However, this will change the commands for the rest of the workers, and they end up moving in an alternative direction to another site. Each turn you issue a new command for something else to do, and the poor workers end up pingponging around the empire, wasting time because of the need to move to a new priority site.

Now we can agree that some players do that anyhow, but it is based on the fact that they choose to do that. But if you allow the computer to take control of that part of the game, you cannot stop the inefficent movement because the computer can not know what your long-term plan is. Put it in as an option, and most players would still opt for taking control themselves.

You can program the game to not override a command once it is given to a worker, so it does not get sidetracked, but again, you are removing control from the player's hands.

My solution does not eliminate worker movement, but it does reduce the total number of 'worker entities' within the game. Most players like the aspect of moving a few workers around in the beginning of the game, but it sinks into tedium because your worker pool becomes large and unwieldly when you have to issue commands to each individual worker unit on a turn-by-turn basis.

You can have 100 'single entity' units merged into 20 'workgangs' that give you faster tile creation (with built-in benefits because they are lock-merged). Couple that with the SMAC multitask command feature for tile improvements (move to this spot and build a farm/road with one command) and you have a system that strikes a nice balance between micromanagement and streamlined gameplay.

[Solver]

Polution in CTP is, IMO, a very good concept. The fact that you start getting pollution before you can fix it makes you want to avoid it, which adds another thing to deal with, which is good .

[DarkCloud]

How can you have an opinion on that while you haven't even seen it yet

Actually, I'd agree with maquiladora here- 3D just doesn't work in any game other than First PErson Shooters- Neverwinter Nights and D&D were ruined by 3D... Civ looked idiotic in semi-3d and CTP looked idiotic as well. 3d Just doesn't look good on a 2D monitor.

[Locutus]

Civ2/3 and CtP1/2 are about as 2D as 2D comes these days. Whatever you think of their graphics, you can't say 3D is bad because those games are bad.

RoN and the Rome: Total War are 3D and they look great

There are both good and bad 3D games and also both good and bad 2D games. Whether the graphics will look good and whether the graphics are 2D or 3D are two different issues.

Casual gamers (as opposed to us hard-core vets) will expect the game to be 3D and are a lot less likely to buy if it isn't. So if the Civ franchise hopes to survive in the long run, it'll have to adapt.

[Dale]

As mentioned in another thread, my biggest concerns are two-fold:

1.

One of the key phrases for Civ4 will be "Simplify, simplify, simplify", which means as much as streamlining the existing gameplay where possible.

I hope this does not indicate a further uncomplicating of the game. Simplification in Civ3 killed it for me, though I still say Civ3+Conquests is playable.

I'd like to see them take the phrase "nationalise, nationalise, nationalise", and break away from the city-state methods of present and go towards national methods. I run a COUNTRY, not a group of CITYS!

2.

Civ4 is part of the Civilization franchise, and a franchise can usually only be successful if it makes conservatively changes between iterations. So Civ4 will not be extremely different from Civ3, it will be another conservative sequel. According to Soren, a good rule of thumb for a franchise is "1/3 old, 1/3 improved, 1/3 new".

Civ4 will take the same core-design from Civ1. While it's a great core-design, it does make for the saying, "it's the previous one with prettier graphics". I'd like to see a core-design based not just around wealth creation as is present in Civ, but around the four integral parts of civilisation development: wealth, location, religion/ideology, and plain ol' curiosity. All Civs to date (including my loved CTP1/2) were centralised around the wealth model so whoever held the most money would win. That creates for a boring game in my opinion.

Anyways, that's just how I feel.

[Robert]

I'm not a big fan of 3D either, but still I insist that we cannot have an opinion on something we haven't seen yet.

Pherhaps they come with a 3D solution we will all love and sets a new standard for the years to come.

[VetLegion]

Well for 3D graphics it could be interesting to be able to rotate the map as long it is birds eye view.

Perhaps.

Let's analyze this a bit for the non bird's eye view. And it is high probability it won't be bird's eye because locking it there would take the third dimension out of 3D

First, tiles remain, we can be certain of that, it's an axiom.

Secondly, if we say it would be cool to rotate the map, it implies that some things would only be visible from a certain angle of rotation.

So, some objects on the map could obstruct our view to other objects! If we look at a flat map, obviousely there is nothing to block your view unless we allow that units can be so large that units behind them cannot be seen. Which is really bad I think.

The other possible case is mountains. If mountains can block your view of units behind them, it means your view is too zoomed in.

For me, even Civ III was too zoomed in. Units and tiles were too large and too few of them were visible on screen.

Civ is a strategic game which means that we "float" so high above the ground that we can not see individual flowers in the fields. It should remain so, in fact, it should return to the roots. The trend has been towards much more zoomed in map, all because of extra eye candy it brings.

Because the more zoomed in it is the more 3D makes sense. Zoomed out 3D map looks almost like an ordinary 2D map. Very flat except for shadows that mountains throw. But the joke is on those shadows too, because they can't move. No dynamic shadows . The scope of the game dictates a resolution of 20 years per turn, which doesn't permit for day/night change.

Perhaps the biggest saving grace of 3D is that maybe, hopefully, it will allow us to get rid of the dreaded isometric view that Civ II (or was it CivNet) brought to us because of eye candy and it stuck since. It took much strategy from the game by distorting perception of distances.

[GePap]

What scares me is "getting rid of unfun elements"- well, loosing is not fun, are we going to get rid of that option?

What will they have to signify revolts, mass unhappiness, corruption and pollution?

I will be honest and say I had little fun when I played China in EU2 and had to deal with 50 years of unbearable messes, little money, endless revolts. But the game overall is still fun, and part of mastering the game is being able to survive those 50 years of chaos.

I don't want civ to be made so player friendly as to be watred down.

Now, when they say religion, what do they mean?

[Solver]

VetLegion, good points on 3D. I still have to say that Civ 1 had probably the best map view. Civ2 had that isometric view which was really hard to understand for me, I could never tell adjacent tiles... CtP1/2 are easy to undrestand, and are my favorites otherwise - since the units look pretty big and realistic there, it at least looks cool in the moden, though more scrolling is involved. Civ 3 is easy to use, but doesn't show that many tiles at once on 1024x768. SMAC was terrible in that regard. The idea of a 3D map in the sense that tiles have different elevation worked. However, the horrible SMAC graphics made units indistinguishable...

Sure, in games like RoN or AoM, 3D is bound to work, those are RTS games. Same goes for FPS games. As for 3D in a civ game, it can work, of course, but that will require some clever design.

[Adagio]

Religion

I just hope they don't just rename culture to religion


And the 3D part could work... but I've got my doubts about it... When talking about 3D I hope they mean like the terrain style in SMAC, not 3D as in Warcrap 3

...and about rpg? Can't say I'm happy about it... it could change too much... just look at WC3